Hate Crime Legislation is Immoral

Alright, I made a fairly straight-forward statement there with that title. But I want everyone to understand how ridiculous I think all of the legislation around this is. Not only is hate crime legislation unfair and contradictory, it is hypocritical in today’s hate filled climate. This is a topic that I have actually wanted to cover ever since I started writing this blog. I just never got around to it. Today the news discussed the fact that Michael Savage (Conservative radio host) was banned from coming to the UK because of the things he says on the air. During the coverage on some sites, hate speech legislation came up because that is what he is banned from the UK for, hate speech. Let me give everyone a quick background on hate crime legislation. Since it is here and we have to deal with it, let’s take a look at how we got to this point. Hate crime laws in the United States(also known as bias crimes) protect against crimes motivated by enmity or animus against a “protected class”. Although state and federal laws vary, typical protected characteristics are race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Traditional hate crime legislation protects persons because of “his race, color, religion or national origin,” as in the case of the 1969 federal hate crimes law.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed in 1994 and signed into law by Clinton, requires the US Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. As a side note, this Act is responsible for far more than just hate crime legislation. The bill also contains Title XI, subtitle A, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban.

On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007(also known as the Matthew Shepard Act). This bill expands existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It went back in for re-working, and on April 24, 2009, the Act passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 15–12. On April 29, 2009 (Last Week!), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 249-175 to pass federal hate crimes legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 requires campus security authorities to collect and report data on hate crimes committed on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability. The DOJ and the FBI have kept statistics on hate crimes since 1992 in accordance with these Laws. According to these reports, of the over 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, 55% were motivated by racial bias, 17% by religious bias, 14% sexual orientation bias, 14% ethnicity bias, and 1% disability bias. For example, in 2004, there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents, out of 1,367,009 violent crimes.

45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 32 cover disability; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 11 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation. 31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts. 27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.

Let me first say that these laws are all quite hypocritical. The shear amount of hating floating around these days is ridiculous. Let’s face it, many of you here are on this site because I don’t allow that kind of hate to be the norm. Pure, unadulterated hatred of anyone with an opposing view is on full display in the media. In finding examples, I can always rely on my resident assholes, MSNBC. Hate laws protect gays in America, but Perez Hilton’s MSNBC tirade against Miss California was as hateful as any I have seen. And that was followed up by Michael Musto (if you are reading this Michael, you are dirtbag piece of shit) from The Village Voice who stated, “The pageant also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean used to be Harry Prejean, a homophobic man married 3 times.” Also from MSNBC, Jeanine Garofalo’s “This is nothing but a bunch racist, teabagging rednecks” rant after the Tea Parties. I guess people are OK with hate these days after all.

But my real beef with Hate Crime legislation is that it is completely contradictory. It says that you will be punished more harshly because you committed violence against someone because they are a member of a protected group. Beat a black man into a coma because he was an asshole, and you get 5 years. Use the N-word while you do it and you get 10 years. And that is just wrong. Violence is violence. A crime is a crime. The reasons why you committed the violent act are irrelevant in these terms. As much as we may think that someone who commits violence because of the factors involved in hate crime legislation are vile and disgusting people, it is a direct violation of the Constitution to restrict their right to say or feel the disgusting things they do.

And in our country we go as far as protecting their right to say those horrible things and be horrible people. The ACLU goes as far as to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. But if NAMBLA members act on their beliefs they are prosecuted the same way any other sexual predator would be prosecuted. And it should be the same for those that commit a hate crime. Their right to say what they want and feel the way they feel is protected, but if they act on those beliefs, they should should be prosecuted exactly the same as any other person who commits that crime.

The idea that the reason that they committed the act deems it worthy of a worse penalty than someone else is extremely contradictory to me. I agree that it is horrible that someone would assault or kill someone because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. But is it more horrible than someone who kills a woman because she lives alone and is vulnerable? Is it more horrible than someone who kills a man because he walked into the wrong neighborhood? Is it more horrible than someone who kills someone because they want to steal their car or rob their house?

I say NO. The young black man who gets beaten to death because he was black is no more or no less dead than the young white man who gets beaten to death because he pinched a married woman’s ass in a bar. The result of the violence is the same regardless of the reason behind it. And that is the key. The result is the same. And therefore, the punishment should be the same. Uninitiated violence is wrong for any reason. If we can agree to that principle (and I think most of us can, especially BF!), then uninitiated violence should be punished equally no matter the reason. I am OK if you want to increase the penalty for all violent crimes, but not if you only increase the penalty for violent crimes done for this one reason.

A dead man is a dead man. A beat up woman is a beat up woman. The reasons are not the point. There are as many reasons for violent crime as there are people. Singling out a certain group of them and determining that their reason is inherently worse of a reason for violent crime is a travesty of justice.

Comments

You made some good points. I do not believe you are wrong. I don’t support this hate crime legislation. I agree with you the it is hypocritical. Not only that, it is prone to abuse. We are ALL supposed to be protected under the SAME laws. Justice used to be blind. Not anymore…..

I have problems with the hate crime law and always have had. This is already covered under criminal law. A crime is a crime no matter who the victim is and i don’t see the need for a special law to cover these crimes.

I have always thought that “Hate Crime Laws” were nothing but “Thought Police Laws”, I could not understand why what one person personally thinks of another persons lifestyle, color of skin or religion could actually be a crime. A lawyer friend once explained it to me as “Legislating our thoughts” . . . So how do we actually know what a persons thoughts are? We don’t, and there is no way that we can ever know a persons thoughts. So, our so-called politicians just ASSUME that a crime committed by a straight guy against a homosexual is because the homosexual is hated by the straight guy, or calling a black person a racial epithet is because that black person is hated by the person who called them that, BUT NOT THE REVERSE. Kinda lopsided, ya think?

An assault is an assault. Regardless who committed the assault against whom, it is still an assault. Likewise with slanderous language which could invoke a butt kicking – It boils down to who started it and how it was started(called the act of inciting response), or who threw the first blow.

Re your Hockey Game tormenters – should one of them actually touched you (and you had a witness to that fact other than your wife), open season would have been appropriate – but only to the effect of ending the assault, not dismantling said assailant down to his basic parts. 😉

However, should your assailant have been a homosexual, you would have been subject to the hate crime law by virtue that you are a married heterosexual – regardless as to who struct the first blow and why. And that, my friend, sucks a big one(pun intended!).

Once again US, a great lead-in, with the history of the subject. One of the reasons I love the site.

US Said:
Violence is violence. A crime is a crime.
G. A. Rowe said:
I have always thought that “Hate Crime Laws” were nothing but “Thought Police Laws”

These two statements are the heart of the issue and demonstrate just how illogical Hate Crime legislation is. There are laws already on the books that cover motive that are not discriminatory.

What is the difference between First Degree murder and Second Degree murder? The thought process behind it, but the big difference in them and Hate crime laws is they do not discriminate against the victim or the perpetrator. Regardless of who or what the victim or the perpetrator is the First/Second degree laws apply equally. “Violence is violence. A crime is a crime.”

Once we go down the slippery slop of Hate Crimes the victim and the perpetrator’s equal rights go out the window. The “class” of people suddenly and arbitrary come in to play to allow one group to be discriminated against. The severity of the punishment is now dependent on the current status of the people involved.

I offer this example:

In San Francisco, a homeless person (not belonging to the protected groups) is beaten to death after a group of homosexuals youth track them as they beg from people on the street.

In San Francisco, a homosexual is beaten to death after a group of homeless youth (not belonging to the protected groups) track them as they proposition people on the street.

Both are equally heinous. The Hate Crime legislation differentials and discriminates against the perpetrator. This is not equal protection under the law, but laws based on what the Thought Police find offensive today…and there in lays the problem. The Thought Police definition of offensive can change and expand to cover any offensive statement to those currently in power ..“I have always thought that “Hate Crime Laws” were nothing but “Thought Police Laws”. BINGO.

To the Liberals out there that support Hate Crime legislation or any form of the Fairness Doctrine, I offer this scenario:

It is not questionable Hate Crime definition and what should be on the radio (when the Fairness Doctrine is passed in its stealth form of “ more diversity” enforced by the FCC) is in the hands of those currently in power. As it currently stands Liberals want and do define the protected classes and forbidden speech on the radio (conservatism). And Liberals are all for Hate Crime legislation and the Fairness Doctrine.

But what happens if Liberals are no longer in power and no longer get to define the application of the Hate Crime Laws or the Fairness Doctrine. What if a pandemic or asteroid hit kills off 30-40% of the population? History has shown in such times people turn to religion.

If suddenly the majority of the leadership and those supporting them are extremely religious and apply Hate Crime and Fairness Doctrine laws/rules the Liberals put on the books. Would they support the application of the Fairness Doctrine when it forces only Religious Programming on radio? Will they support Hate Crimes when a Christian is murdered for witnessing and the perpetrator is given a much more severe punishment because the current Religious leaders demand the most extreme application of the Hate Crime laws?

This has nothing to do with “hate crime” of any kind. What it appears to be is as the EPA ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant as to make the passing of a tax on this “pollution” more palatable itself was, merely a way to punish those who didn’t fall in lockstep. Couldn’t get the fairness doctrine passed as it was anything but fair? Not an issue at all. Make a set of rules that will afford the ability to label something as hateful and then provide a set of actions to deal with such.

Hate to sound like a broken record but once again Canada has already a similar thing in place. At one point it had the libraries strip-mined for banned books and in conjunction with “Canadian Content” laws let them pull books galore. It also took a strange twist as on the extreme it has been used in several cases here where First Nation’s people have killed or attempted to kill anglo Canadians.

In one case not far from where I live, an elderly man having stopped to see if 3 First Nation’s young men needed help with a breakdown was pulled from his vehicle, beaten to near death and then set ablaze. As I recall 3 years was all any served. Yes it was ADULT court. Once you get to use a more liberal view of “hate” in law, be prepared for it to become THE EXCUSE OF THE CENTURY for anyone seeing themselves as a minority doing the most heinous of things. In the Dove case, it was of course blamed on what “society” had done to these poor murderers and how an old man who had stopped to help them “might” have “provoked” their response. The public reaction here became people who had never owned a gun in their life taking the classes, writing the tests and going through the long process to acquire themselves a firearm.

The broadening of what “hate crimes” are is a political tool at best and at its absolute worst an actual excuse for reducing sentencing for the worst of offenses. The politico will tell you it will never happen right up until it actually does every time, then change the subject.

Our “Native Americans”,(I am a squirt Cherokee) insist on being CALLED that, unless somethings changed without my knowing about it. I am proud of the little Cherokee blood I have.I am also proud of my Southern heritage.

Being proud of it doesn’t make me a racist dirtbag though.

EVERYONE should be proud of their heritage, no matter what race or nationality.

USW, Your article is spot on and I could not offer anything that would add to your clear reasoning.

The participants here continue to show the highest level of decorum that I have ever witnessed on a political blog. Those that I disagree with present their opinions in such a way that I have to pause and rethink my position and have even altered it in some manner.

These laws and many others (see HR45) are nothing more than kneejerk reactions to some nasty crime. Had that particular crime(s) not been committed, most of these laws would not exist. I agree that justice should be blind, and it used to be, but Congress continues to have their heads up their butts, and want to pass another new freedom taking law everytime something particularly bad happens. I do find it odd that there have been a few nasty murders involving a butcher knife, baseball bat, and other various objects, yet they have not tried to pass a law banning them, But yet they continue to assault our Second Amendment rights.

Hate Crime legislation also results in political posturing for re-election. Once it is introduced, none of the spineless politicians want to go on record as opposing it. Their political rivals will use it against them when they are up for re-election. “He hates (insert any “protected group” here)!” will be the cry of the opposing candidate.

If I am in a bar, and, as I come back from the restroom, I see Joe hitting on my wife, so I take Joe out to the parking lot and beat him up, that is a crime.

If I am in a bar and as my wife is coming back from the restroom, she sees Joe hitting on me, so she takes Joe out to the parking lot and beats him up, that is a hate crime.

Vinnster makes a great point that liberals should be careful what they wish for, because if we ever were to get a Theocracy (like they CLAIM we do anytime a conservative gets any power) these laws could be used against them VERY effectively.

True story from England:

An Islamic professor commented that under Islam, homosexuality is viewed as abhorrent and is not tolerable. A gay rights group complained and the professor is now being investigated for potential hate-speach for being a homophobe. The professor complained because the gay-rights group is anti-Islam, so the gay rights group is concurrently being investigated for hate-speach for being Islamophobes.

I took a class in college because it was a writing class at night during the summer and I figured that would be the best time to get it out of the way. It was called “Rhetoric and Human Rights.” I thought I couldn’t be that bad human rights are quite natural. It turned out to be focused on Sex Crimes because Human Rights was just too vague.

While the topic did have a lot of the “that’s fucked up why would someone do that” sort of crime the topic of “Hate Crimes” was covered as well.

The sad reality is that people do target people because they hate people of a certain type. There was an instance that was discussed where this homosexual man was being harassed by a neighbor. The police were called several times and nothing came of it because it wasn’t serious. Then the guy decides to film himself every time he is outside because that is normally when the altercations happen. The thing he captures on film is the neighbor coming home and immediately verbally abusing and then beating the man when he was outside doing yard work. Without the video do you think that he would have gotten the police to do anything?

Is the phrase “Crime is Crime” actually true? I think it is safe to say that in most or almost all cases crime has a motive. Be it a robbery for money or beating up someone because your argument escalated into a fight. Would a crime committed because of hate against a group actually have a motive? In a lot of cases you hear of hate crimes because a person does nothing at all, and in some cases you hear of the person looked at the other funny and because they are known to hate that persons group hate crime gets tagged on.

Even if a hate crime looks like it just got tagged on, wouldn’t it make you wonder if it would have been less serious if there wasn’t any hate?

Hate does play a factor in the level of crimes committed, and they can be called hate crimes because of such.

However, I do not believe that adding years in jail will ever correct hate crimes. The level of violence would have most likely have already been escalated and therefore a stiffer sentence if found guilty.

Can you stop someone from hating? No, but the constitution is based on personal freedoms. They have a right to hate, but no right to commit crimes against others. Therefore, punish the crime.

No one here is denying that “hate crimes” happen. Also, no one here is denying that crime committed against someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is a bad thing.

What we are saying is that hate crimes legislation violates equal protection under the law. Hate crimes legislation basically says that murdering someone because they are homosexual (for example) is WORSE than simply murdering someone. In both cases, one person has deprived another person of their unalienable right to live. The REASON for one person murdering another should not be relevant. It is equivalent to the Government making a moral judgement that one reason for murder is more morally pure than another reason.

In ANY case, a murderer should be punished. However, it seems it would be unconstitutional to punish one murderer more severely than another simply based upon the perception that one motive for murder is preferable to another motive for murder.

I’m in the midst of reading 1984, so seeing GA’s reference to “Thought Police Laws” piqued my interest. Right now, I’m at the point where Winston is reading “The Book”.

I find it fascinating that Winston has realized that BB’s strategy of taking away/re-educating/brainwashing (whatever you want to call it) an individual’s ‘feelings’ of what “love/personal relationship” is probably the party’s most influential weapon of subjugation for party members…

IMHO, there is a fine line between love & hate. Many people have done many horrible things in both the names of Love & Hate. So, what is next, the “Love” Crime Laws. Defense lawyers could make good arguments against “hate” crimes. For example: Your Honor, my client “loves” babies which grow into adults — by virtue of this “love”, my client loves adults, therefore, his bombing of the Abortion Clinic was done out of “love” not “hate”. There are so many different ways to interpret “feelings”. Feelings CANNOT be legislated.

So, keeping inline with the theme in paragraph one of my post, the Hate Laws are the equivalent of “vaporizing” party members.

US Weapon is right. Prevent Witch Hunts and Legislate by Logic, not by Emotion.

Guilty = Guilty
Innocent = Innocent

Individual Thought = Liberty

I hope everyone has a fine day. It is the weekend afterall and the sun is finally shining here in Richmond, VA!

I’ve heard it said that liberals see the world the way they want it to be and conservatives see the world the way that it is. I think that probably plays into these emotional laws that are being shoved down our throats on a daily basis.

I’ve heard that too. And, I think you have a valid point that this could be a reason that these “emotional” laws are being shoved into all our orifices.

For example, take the AIG Bonuses:

Contractually, AIG was required to pay those bonuses. Sure it leaves a VERY bad tastes in our mouths as citizens…It sucks. But, since our Government stepped up and decided to bail out AIG, that meant that AIG had to contractually meet their obligations. Then, once everyone hears about it, EMOTION seeps in and people start yelling, picketing, moaning, crying foul – whatever. So, our illustrious leader decides that the masses must be kept happy, otherwise it will make him look bad (and no re-election in 2012); now we have “EMOTION” policies that prevent companies from meeting their contractual obligations.

For an “extreme” example, let us postulate that a homosexual man decides to murder several members of a particular Christian Church because that Church firmly believes and tells its congregation that homosexuality is unacceptable in the eyes of God.

Under the current laws, I ASSUME that the homosexual man could be tried for hate crimes because he was singling out members of this particular Church.

Unfortunately, I would be willing to bet that the ACLU would claim that this man was a crusader trying to right the “wrongheaded” teachings of this Church, and would vehemently oppose their client being tried for any sort of hate-crime.

It is the favoratism implied in this type of legislation of one group over another that makes it unconstitutional.

The tax code now has over 76,000 pages of complex, special interest codes, where the IRS only gives the correct answer to call-in questions 2/3’s of the time. If they give a wrong answer, you pay the fine or go to prison.

The EPA can find a slug or rat on your property, declare it endangered, and stop you from planting a garden or digging a hole.

I read about an inventor in Alaska last year who was arrested by a swat team for a postal violation. At least five men in black with machine guns were prepared to shoot him for mailing something, just as he had for years. They had passed a new law, requiring the package to have a special label, so he’s serving two years and is now a felon.

On Feb. 15 this year, Ashton Lundeby of Oxford N.C. came home from church to be arrested by the FBI under the Patriot Act. He is vanished, his mother cannot even talk to him or find out where he is being held.

They are serving their special interest groups, to retain their power. The hate crime laws are just another plank in that fence, that has encircled those wild hogs formerly called Americans.

As with capital offenses there is little evidence to suggest that more severe penalties serve as a deterrence to those committing the crime – be it rooted in hate or opportunity or as a crime of passion……

Here is your liberal “however” of the day….

Are all types of crime created equal? For instance, should a man who sexually assaults a five year old be treated/punished the same as the 26 year old female teacher that commits the same crime with a male student? Do your feelings change if either person on either side of those equations is a family member or someone you are close to? Do your thoughts change on the subject if you are someone that has been victimized because you fit into one of those classes?

Which leads me to…..

I do not think you can or should distinguish – the same as I hate having to figure out what municipality I can or cannot use a cell phone in, nor should I have to wonder what constitutes hate in someones eyes. I’ve lived in enough different places to know that what constitutes hate can vary wildly and to leave something as such to interpretation is a dangerous thing. This does run counter to many other things that even our high Court has ruled on – in so far as interpreting what may/may not be a ‘shock to the senses’ – but that is for a different day.

If justice were indeed blind then, yes, all types of crime are equal. I would ask for the same penalty for the female teacher that molests a male student as I would for the uncle who molests his niece. The crimes are not different and should not be punished differently.

The only unprotected class is the average, middle-aged, white, male, heterosexual. Ummmmm……me. I am so damn sick of being discriminated against.

Basically, hate crime legislation says that if an average, middle-aged, white, male, heterosexual commits a crime against anyone other than an average, middle-aged, white, male, heterosexual – then it is a hate crime. There really is no viable debate to be had on the subject, it is discrimination in its truest form.

Maybe it’s time for us average, middle-aged, white, male, heterosexuals to start marching, giving speeches, screaming into a microphone, and protesting against segregation and discrimination against US.

After reading the Bill yesterday Roper, I agree that us average, middle-aged, white, male heterosexuals are the only ones not covered under that damn Bill. Every single other race, sexual orientation, gender, and even religion IS mentioned.

So I suppose that we would have to claim to be discriminated against because of our religion? I don’t think that would work for us. We can only be perpetrators of those kind of crimes, not victims.

The hard fact is that a hate crime can include ANY color or gender, or religion and sexual orientation. The Law should apply equally in any crime regardless.

White middle class Chrisian heterosexual men are the evildoers who have opressed all of these other victims throughout history! It is now not only OK but highly desireable to discriminate against them in retaliation for their shabby treatment of all of these others in the past!

At least I am sure that that is the justification liberals use for passing this type of idiotic “law”.

I can’t offer a more clear reasoning than US has already offered. What I worry about most though is this.

In discussions on this Hate Crime Bill, Congress and Obama said that people woulf not be charged with a Hate Crime just for speaking their mind. (Ex.- A preacher speaking out against homosexuality or abortion as wrong and punishable by God)

However, Obama also said that nobody involved in the Waterboarding of the Terrorists would be prosecuted. So I wonder if this is just another appeasement tactic of theirs to get the Law passed. After it is, then they can do as they please. This has been a clear tactic of The Administration and the Congress that has been shown repeatedly even when Bush was still in Office.

So pardon me if I don’t take their word for this. As far as I’m concerned, their word is about as worthless as teats on a boar hog.

On another note. How many of you have noticed that there seems to be a new idea coming from either the White House or Congress almost every day? You don’t have time to digest or even think much about one topic before out comes something else. And very rarely is it something happy making either.

Most of the things coming out of Washington these days is gives me chests pains just thinking about it. I think this is being purposely done to deliberately keep the public from focusing on one thing. And then they slide something else by us without notice. This is done of course with the help of the MSM. If the MSM ignores it, how does the general public find out about it? Just my humble opinion.

“In discussions on this Hate Crime Bill, Congress and Obama said that people would not be charged with a Hate Crime just for speaking their mind. (Ex.- A preacher speaking out against homosexuality or abortion as wrong and punishable by God)”

Your example is exactly what happened in Canada. Alberta Pastor Steve Boissoin was found guilty last November of hate speech because he wrote a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate that was “likely” to expose homosexuals to hatred. The letter was about the gay agenda in our schools. He was ordered to pay $7,000 in fines, to never speak disparagingly about homosexuality, gagging him from criticizing gay marriage for the rest of his life, in public (including sermons) and in private (including personal e-mails), and to apologize to the complainant in a letter to be published in the Red Deer Advocate.

An interesting twist, a free speech advocate, Ezra Levant (who is also a Jew), republished the pastor’s letter, word for word, on his blog. A complaint was filed against him but was dismissed because it didn’t incite hatred. He says it is because he is Jewish and this is really about discrimination againt a Christian.

My example was my Pastor. He does not preach Hate. He only preaches that it and abortion is wrong and will be punished by God. He does NOT preach that anyone should show hate towards them.

I know him very well. He will NOT stop preaching this no matter what Law they pass. I worry that they will use the law to do the same to him as what they did to the Canadian Pastor.

I don’t see how they can prosecute someone for something they say causing someone else to maybe or maybe not do. That is like saying Bugs Bunny cartoons cause children to commit violence. It’s just stupidity.

Your comments are great and right on everyone. I too have just read 1984 so that whole “thought police” thing is where I believe this ridiculous bill falls.

I do love your examples and especially yours Peter B – do you think those idiots in Washington actually run some of these scenarios through before proceeding with this stuff?

One of the strong proponents of this is Tammy Baldwin, my very own representative. Tammy is a lesbian (more power to her for what she does behind closed doors), however, she views every issue with her sexuality being front and center. By pushing this through, she is now helping all “victims” which is how she views herself.

Obama is being pressured to nominate a gay person for the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for them said that, if appointed, this person would not try to legislate their sexual orientation. So apparently they already have someone in mind.

The Obama administration announced its oversight of the census, literally taking control of the census away from the Commerce Department. Now, here is something to make you think. The official census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…

So why…???

Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 feet of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right?

You are still on subject, the government that makes the laws, can make it “legal” to take everyone of our rights. The census is just to ensure they won’t loose power. I talked to a liberal friend the other day, she thinks things are just rosy. She’s pro-2nd amendment. I wonder when she will start feeling worried?

Think the GPS marker is to make it easier to bomb the right house? LOL, the GPS doesn’t matter, they have our addresses and can find us at will.

“A number of concerned citizens have contacted WND about the program, and repeatedly have cited warnings delivered by the GPS squad members that their failure to allow the readings would result in fines and possibly imprisonment under Title 13, which allows the census to be taken.”

Exactly how in the hell can they arrest or fine them? The census is not until next year.

Permission…what is that? They don’t need your permission. They snope, trespass so to say…doing it without your permission, while your not home or while you are running an errand. Most Americans are out of there home from 8-5. These people that have reported it saw them, they didn’t knock on their door and ask for permission.

Yes it worries me, I am not sure about the rest. This is what I have been trying to show you all…there is a agenda and it will be deadly. All these rules, laws, and regulations are not set in place in case of “a terrorist attack”. We “Americans” are the terrorist or extremist in there eyes. We have to wake up and stop dismissing and discrediting things that we don’t believe or don’t think can’t and want happen and seek the truth in everything that is introduced to us. We, as a nation, all colors and creeds, have to come together. We have to put our pride, selfishness, prejudices, ect. aside and protest peacefully and when the time comes (and it will)fight for our rights.

I wonder what their idea of possessing too much will be? Who knows Esom…maybe a gram or 2.

But the bigger question is how is this law in Mexico going to affect the states? How will this affect the contraversy with the “war on drugs”? They are still pushing the CIFTA treaty mind you…Obama and Caldera (Mexico President) are working close together to try to fight the drug dealers, kidnappings, gun exchanges, ect…oh really!? Did Obama not see this coming or was it all apart of the plan?

I have to say that I really do admire your knowledge over a wide array of topics/issues. It’s all so mind-boggling to me! I can’t seem to remember the day-to-day “Change” from day-to-day! You go, girl!

I really don’t know how these Hate Crime laws are found to be constitutional. Under the Equal Protection clause there can be no “protected classes”. Everyone is a protected class. By what legal machination do the supporters of these laws circumvent this irrefutable argument? Seriously, if someone knows how these laws are able to stand I’d love to learn how. Is it the same “in the name of fairness” argument used to justify affirmative action?

London has lots of hate preachers who not only speak out for sharia law and all its consequences but moreover preach hate against all non-believers. There is nothing England does against them except pay for their welfare and for their 20 children each.
On the other hand they refuse entry to Mr Geert Wilders, a politician of the Dutch parliament who published the film “Fitna”. He had several speeches from NY to Miami to LA.

Well, guess its time for the gay girl to put her thoughts in on the subject.LOL. I dont believe that there hate bill passed, but I would like a bill that allows people who need to reach out to others outside of their local police, be able to do so and get results. I cant speak for others, so I will give you my situation. I live in a outside of a larger city, my town has about 3500 people in it. I have a rainbow flag, along with a American flag and my military flag hanging in my background which is fenced in. My house has been spray painted, windows broken, car’s tires have been flatten etc. I dont flaunt my life, I go to work,church..pay my bills, dont show PDA in public. I dont want to move because I grew up here, and love where I live. Outside of the some of the crazy locals. I have filed a report everytime with the police, and have basically been told that I bring this on to myself. I have figured that in the last 5 yrs, there has been close to 50,000 dollars worth of damages done to my place. I have called the local FBI, Mayor, Congressman etc to get help. And are told the same thing, we have no right to do anything until my local police do. I dont want to sue, but I would like it to stop. I would like everyone, no matter who they are, to have another option if police refuses to do anything to stop what is happening to them or their property.

The problem here is not with the law, but with the fact that your local law enforcement is not providing you with equal protection under the law. I would sue them. Even though this will be seen as more stirring of the pot by you and even though it would probably mean that you would indeed have to move.

The fact that they are claiming you “bring this upon yourself” and will not provide you with equal protection under the law is a clear indication that you (sadly) probably need to move anyway, so you might as well extract your constitutionally provided “pound of flesh” from them on your way out.

It is sad when any American cannot live in a place of their own choosing because of any sort of discriminatory practice. The bozos at your local police department would probably claim to be “conservatives” too 😦 I hate it when people like that give us real conservatives a bad name!

Remember that free advice is worth what you paid for it (lol), but if I were you I would sue the crap out of your local police department and get the heck outta there.

I have to agree with Peter. I don’t see anything you can do EXCEPT sue the worthless fools. Even if the Hate Crime Law passes, it doesn’t look to me as if the local lawmen there will do anything but hinder any investigation.

Not sure of your financial situation, but I understand that you can purchase Video Survellience equipment somewhat inexpensively and record (Video & Sound).

If you have the crimes against you documented, then the Boss Hawg in your town would have to listen/act. It’s not fair that you would have to do this, but it is reality. If you do have it documented and Boss Hawg doesn’t do anything, then I say sue the pants off for damages and discrimination.

Ellen, you are not bringing this on yourself, so don’t believe that! Have you heard of any others in your town experiencing the same problem. High probability is that it is some young kids doing it…If caught, then you should also sue the pants off their parents — or at least threaten to as to scare the parents straight (no pun intended) ;o

A family in our area was being treated in similar fashion and they finally stopped it with video cameras which they submitted to everyone – press, police, schools and they finally got the justice they deserved.

I do understand your frustration, but unfortunately, even with something like the hate crime bill, if law enforcement won’t do their job, it won’t help.

I do have a sincere question though and I hope this comes across that way….why do you fly the rainbow flag? In the area I live, there is a very active and prominent gay community, so seeing rainbow pins, flags, etc. is not unusual, however, I’ve always wondered at the why? If gays want to just be treated as equals, as they should be, why make sure to point out that you are gay? I fly no flag or wear a pin that tells my sexual orientation and think it’s a little bit of “too much information”. Can you help me understand? Thank you.

I know your question is directed towards Ellen, but I’d like to take a stab at answering…hope you don’t mind…and if this seems a bit strong, I don’t mean for it to. Just my perception/opinion.

I personally dislike Pro Competetive Sports in general (just my preference). But there are millions of people out there who have PRIDE in their Team, their Driver, etc. So, because of that pride, they sometimes have “Flags” denoting that a “Redskins” fan lives here, or they where logo’d clothing/jewelry. Not a thing wrong with it!

During election time last year, I had my preference flags all over my yard (McCain/Palin) yard signs. Nothing wrong with it! Wore some cheap jewelry (buttons) and shirts…Have a great shirt of BO and Joe Biden in circles right over my breasts, with the words underneath saying, “Just a Couple of Boobs”.

I drive by homes displaying “Mexican” Flags…don’t care for it, but there’s nothing wrong with it!

Ellen states in her post that her flag is in her fenced-in backyard…nothing wrong with that. It’s Ellen’s property afterall.

As long as Ellen isn’t in my face, your face screaming that I or you must accept or else, then she isn’t doing anything wrong. Ellen, please correct me if I’m wrong, but do you go around planting rainbow flags on other people’s property — I doubt it. From all of Ellen’s postings that I’ve read here for the last few weeks, she seems like a normal person…just like me…trying to get by in life and enjoy her liberties while not infringing on other peoples’ liberties…

Well for me its a show of pride for me. That I am not ashamed of who I am. I also fly the American and Navy flag because I am proud of both and it is also who I am. Thanks for the post everyone-but I will going to sue or move. To me that lets the Crazy people win. I have paid for my home and that is will I stay. If that makes any sense.

RS and Ellen, Thank you for the responses and I get all the pride stuff and you have every right to fly whatever flag without being ashamed. Compared to sports teams, political issues, this has always just seemed so personal to me, ie why let people into your bedroom?

I admire your willingness to fight for your home, Ellen and not let the crazies win. I know I would do the same (and I would buy those video cameras:)

Ellen, Sadly, the police are not liable for the damage to your home, which in itself is sad. Cops can only stop crimes that they run across, and investigate crimes that have occured. I’m not sure how you bring this on yourself, unless the rainbow flag has some significance as to your personal lifestyle. Unfortunatly, there are far too many people who think they have the right to judge others, and act on those judgements in a bad way.

I was not suggesting that Ellen sue the police based upon the damage done to her property, but rather that she sue them for not providing her with equal protection under the law. Richmond’s idea of using audio/video surveilance equipment to document any crimes that occur on her property would be good, but she should also tap her own phone and record any conversations she has with the local police so that she can prove that they are wilfully failing to protect her.

I can understand where your frustration come from reading your blog but a “hate-crime” bill, especially how they have made it will do you or anyone else justice. Yes, I believe everyone should have the same rights regardless of there sexuality. As an American citizen, your local police inforcement should be handling this…but oh, I forgot, the police are not here to “protect and serve” and Sweet Land America is dissolving right before our eyes. With that said, I wish you best!

A PC security camera setup and a good yard light would do you fine and the footage is stored as avi’s so a huge time allotment before having to erase anything. Catch a few idiots, show the police and if you don’t get a result from that then YouTube the video and ask the question of the masses “Is this acceptable?”. Don’t forget to name your town. I’ll bet you a box of donuts the fine upstanding types won’t care too much to see the town’s name associated with vandalism let alone a helping of homophobia to boot. I know I wouldn’t and were it my grandson, there would be a foot in his ass and you’d have a yard hand until things were made right to my satisfaction.

Ellen…..get the cameras….without evidence there is no prosecution. The only way to protect yourself and your property is to guard it. You can hire a full time quard or you can get cameras. Police can not sit in front of your house…while they are guarding yours the attackers are aroud the block attacking something else. Don’t tell anyone you have the cameras and don’t tell anyone when you catch them on film. Get the film make 2 copies….carry one to the county Sheriff and the other to the Prosecuting Attorney. Advise them you want an arrest warrant for the people on the film. It may take a few weeks to identify them if you do not know them. Also install some motion lights. Nothing throws rats back into hiding like a bunch of light thrown on them. If it is kids…their parents probably have no idea where they are or what they are doing….if it is grown ups they need to be thrown under the jailhouse.
You do not have to run from those kind of people….if you do you’ll be running the rest of your life. I may also add that while you have the right to fly your flag you may give it a second thought….would you fy a flag telling the thief you had your money stashed in the nightstand? The world is full of not very nice people.

A couple of thoughts from me on your situation and what you are dealing with. I want to do the same as Just a Citizen and thank you for your service to the country. Of course you could have done Army rather than Navy (just kidding!).

I feel for the situation that you find yourself in. You have every right to be proud of who you are. And it seems to me that you are proudly displaying three flags that show your pride. In an ideal world people would respect all three flags and support you for your beliefs. It is a shame that some people are so bigoted and hateful that they cannot respect the rainbow flag.

I find it especially sad because I have known so many gay friends who are some of the most caring and wonderful people, and I feel like if these bigots took the time to get to know some gay folks, they might see this too. It is always painful for me to see people lose the ability to see the humanity in everyone and find out whether the person is a good person, gay, straight, or both!

I understand your unwillingness to surrender to the hatred, and I applaud it. That is the kind of fight that Americans need to have again.

As much as I hate to suggest using a group that I can’t stand, have you contacted any of the more militant groups that lobby in support of gay rights? The group I am thinking of when I say I can’t stand them is the ACLU. It seems to me that the civil liberty to fly the flag of your choice is being taken away by a police force that refuses to protect you. I would think a group like the ACLU would come to your aid. I did a quick search for groups that might help and found this one you might try:

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is the nation’s oldest support and advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. In addition to supporting legislation granting equal protection to same-sex couples, the Task Force has recently begun a Transgender Civil Rights Project aimed at ending discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

How do you all feel about the “special circumstance” charge that gets added to anyone who kills someone and is a known gang member? My nephew was killed for wearing the wrong color and they’ve added this “special circumstance” to the the charges.

I am not sure how I feel about this question. On the one hand, trying to reduce gang activity by making criminal penalties harsher for known gang members seems laudible, yet if you go by our argument that murder is murder regardless of the circumstances, then I would say that on that basis I would oppose increased sentences just based upon the fact that someone is a known gang member.

There are already laws requiring increased penalties for multiple offenses, so it seems like increased penalties simply for known gang association would perhaps be overkill.

I am not personally totally against increased penalties for known gang members, but I think to be logically consistent here I have to oppose them.

Much the same as others have said, I don’t support the idea of making the murder itself carry a harsher penalty because of the gang affiliation. That would be similar to hate crimes and I want equal protection for everyone and equal punishment for everyone. However, if a separate group of additional charges could be added for gang membership and things like that, I would imagine that the sentence could be extended because of the additional charges.

On a side note, I am am sorry for your loss. That kind of thing I wish no one would have to go through.

I agree G…if Vinnie had been carrying I’m sure it would have turned out far differently. But he was just a BIG guy and it took 2 of them with knives to take him down. I have mixed feelings on this subject. I too agree crime is crime and should be punished equally, but on the other hand I hope these 2 kids get whatever charges they can find to lay on them. Revenge so to speak even though it won’t bring him back. Thanks

Crap, my first post and I mucked it up. It was supposed to be a “stand-alone” post (and through the magic of being the only one with edit capabilities I moved your other post to be a standalone post as you wished, LOL… USWeapon)

Kym, although I don’t know you; wishing revenge will not return a loved one, but neither will forgiveness. It is when you feel compelled to take action on your feelings for revenge, then you should question yourself.

I can’t say that I haven’t thought of what would have happened if I had run into these punks before the police got them. But they were caught within a day and are awaiting trial so its in the laws hands now.

You stated: The reason I don’t see anything wrong with it is that for every one of the definitions but the one I stated above, it says that they use violence to acheive their goals. We don’t use violence. We use simple words.
I do think it interesting that the right wing extremists are listed with the rest but not described as being violent though. I suppose since all the Tea Partyers were called RWEs that we could be classified under that, couldn’t we? And US, Me, MadMom, Rowe, JAC, LOI, and BF could be called RWEs too I suppose.
But as long as I can still type, I ain’t gonna stop voicing my opinion. So I guess if that’s the way they want it, they can lock me up with that 17 yr old boy under The Patriot Act. But I sure hope not.

Now I wanted to bring this to your attention.The South Bend Tribune reports that political activist, author, former diplomat and presidential candidate Alan Keyes has been arrested on the campus of Notre Dame. Keyes was involved in an anti-abortion protest at the time of his arrest.

Keyes was involved in an anti-abortion protest at the time of his arrest.

On May 6, 2009, Keyes announced he would be present at the University of Notre Dame on May 17 and planned to be arrested protesting President Obama’s invitation to speak and receive an honorary degree at the ceremony, the Catholic News Agency reported.

In a statement released earlier this week, Keyes said he “will go to South Bend. I will step foot on the Notre Dame campus to lift up the standard that protects the life of the innocent children of this and every generation. I will do it all day and every day from now until the Master comes if need be, though it mean I shall be housed every day in the prison house of lies and injustice that Obama, Jenkins and their minions now mean to construct for those who will never be still and silent in the face of their mockery of God and justice, their celebration of evil.”

Randall Terry, founder of the the pro-life organization Operation Rescue, appeared this afternoon on the Alex Jones Show with Jason Bermas, Terry said Keyes was arrested with other protesters as they pushed baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood across the campus of the Catholic university. Terry said the protests will continue.

In 2008, Keyes lost a bid to become the Constitution Party presidential candidate. During the convention, the party’s founder, Howard Phillips, gave a controversial speech in which he referred to Keyes as “the neocon candidate.” Keyes formed a new third party, America’s Independent Party, for his presidential candidacy. In the federal election held on November 4, 2008, Keyes received 47,694 votes nationally to finish seventh.

Now Mr. Keyes is on the list for anti-abortion extremist although he was a peaceful protestor. That is my problem with the dictionary!

I don’t see a problem with the definitions Nubian, because all of them were described as VIOLENT, but I do think the list was stupid and unnecessary. Does Homeland Security have trouble understanding what an extremist or terrorist is? Because if they need a dictionary with definitions in it, they need smarter employees.

Nice post. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Maybe Ellen is being punished for the offenses of others in the gay community. Backlash? I know several homosexuals and they’re decent people who don’t bother anybody. Then there is Perez Hilton and the militant activist crew. I get the feeling that Ellen’s neighbors are resentful of the Perez Hilton/militant types, and are taking it out on Ellen because they have no other recourse. Its not right, but its understandable. I think the solution is for the PH types to tone it down and stop harrassing and offending people. That would go along way in helping everyone to get along.

I have to say though that it sure is a shame that Ellen who is just a normal person might have to “pay” for the stupidity of someone else or group of people.

Ellen should be liked or disliked, judged or not judged based upon who ELLEN is, not because she is ‘gay’. The people who are harrassing Ellen by destroying her property are committing a crime and should be punished regardless of her being gay or straight, white or black, Catholic or Baptist, High IQ or Low IQ…you get the picture.

If Ellen leaves, they will just find someone else to attack. Someone they feel will not fight back. People like that don’t need a good reason to hate others. They are scum and blame the world for it, instead of themselves.

I’m not sure they are scum, just wrong. Badly wrong, yes, but be careful about condemning others before you know everything about them. We’re all wrong headed and make terrible mistakes in our lives. They should be held accountable however.

Ellen deserves equal protection under the law and she is not recieving it. Originally that is what the ACLU was formed to combat. Though now they seek to force others to their views instead of just demanding that the law be upheld.

Actually I think the fault of the police who are ignoring the problem is worse than the vandals who are doing the harrassment. Ellen should go after them with a vengance and she should take the tack of the law being upheld rather the gay rights tack. (Of course gays have rights, but they are the same rights everyone else has, aren’t they?)

I agree completely. But what SHOULD happen and what DOES happen quite often are out of sync. Not flying the rainbow flag might be the wiser choice if what she wants is not to be targeted. For example: I’ve begun to keep my conservative principles/opinions to myself. Now, I SHOULD be able to speak my opinions freely and not receive hateful comments and treatment. But that’s not how it works these days, is it? I’ve taken to keeping my opinions to myself, even when asked, because I know how many liberals behave. I don’t need that kind of BS in my life. So, its unfortunate that there are some people who cannot respect/tolerate someone who is different. Those of us who are different have the choice of how to proceed. Ellen should be able to fly her flag and not be harrassed. She can’t control her neighbor’s behavior, but she can control hers. My recommendation to her is to stop flying the flag. But, that’s just my advice. I’m not one to put being ‘right’ above everything else.

You do have a valid point Cyndi. There are some battles that are worth fighting and some that aren’t…sometimes it is more wise to retreat.

Ellen,

Whatever you choose to do, I do sincerely wish you the best. Do keep us updated on what happens…I think that I can speak for most everyone here and say that we wish you a successful conclusion with this and above all, please take care of yourself and remain safe.

I agree with USW’s view on hate crime legislation. For anyone with the least bit of rational thought the whole thing is absurd. So why do people support it? First there are those who use no rational thought–decide on emotion. Emotional decision making–revenge–is exactly why we have a court system which decides on guilt and punishment instead of individual citizens turning vigilante. That is utterly frightening chaos.

The other group who support hate legislation are indeed those who would use the force of government to control/change our thoughts.

There are a lot of people with evil, wacked out and wrong headed thought proceses. I imagine that covers all of us to one degree or another. Unless we are God, though, we really can’t judge anothers thoughts or motivations. Hate crime legislation essentially declares guilt or innocence before a crime is even committed.

Humm….understanding….so now rape is a hate crime, right? This is really stupid…..yes it goes on…always has. How do you prove someone did something motived by hate and not passion, or anger? This legislation is crazy and so far reaching it is beyond comprehension.
For instance during the election there was a young woman who was an Obama fan. She scream bigot every time someone said they were not voting for him and she made alot of people very angry. She was a vey unreasonable person. She had Obama signs all over her yard. One night someone attacked her home, spray painted some horrible things on her house, sidewalk and vehicle. Destroyed her signs. She really went crazy when someone told her maybe it wasn’t who she was voting for but her attitude toward people who did not believe the same way she did that got her home attacked. After all there were other Obama signs in town and no one else was attacked…..she really became irrate and vocal at that point. But the thing is I believe certain things are private, who you vote for, your sexual preferences family discussions There are just somethings better kept to your self.
You have the right to discuss them, or put signs in your yard or what ever….but would you put up signs announcing you were going on vacation?
I believe that all crime is committed with some kind of hate involved wether an intentional thought of hate or not. You can’t commit crimes against people you love…that makes no sense. You can force people to like other people…you can’t force them to agree with other people either. You can not force people to accept something they do not believe in. Making a law does not stop crime…never has never will.
I have the right to dislike a thief. I have the right to dislike an over bearing person, I have the right to dislike druggies and I have a right to my opinion. I DONOT have the right to act violently toward another person just because I don’t like them, or I do not agree with them.
This is what I call an appeasement act…..regardless of the repercussion a law will be inacted to shut certain people up. It will change only one thing….it will take away a people’s rights and force them futher into servitude.

1. By the time I read your articles, there has been so many responses that I can’t read because 1A. They go off to the side in my browser and my eyes just won’t work that way.
1B. I have passive ADD (similar to Einstein, Ben Franklin, etal) So by the time I get to post my most succinct ideas, I’ve addressed too many other issues. LOL

2. See I have no clue what two was !!

3. As per your race and homophobic examples, It does matter to that asshole who is violent. At the time of violence, it meant something to them. I mean, will ‘they – Liberals’ set up a special class for slimeball lawyers who I have hated (and probably still do). If I knew that my daughter wouldn’t be effected negatively (since she ended growing up in an abusive home because of attorney greed, father prejudice etc) and I was going to croak very soon, my hate would easily be satisfied. Heck, as I speak, it sounds like I’ve won a prize, I will get a BETTER sentence than one who beats up a gay guy! What a deal!

Thanks for listening, my other points were interrupted by twitter, Thomas Sowell (my heart flutters when I think of him, that we can read him real time!), and John Stossel! Oh well..

If I could assume the majority of people here regard most court systems in the USA as being “soft” on crime, why is there such opposition to increasing sentences?

Obviously, this is a rhetorical question, I understand that the issue is the “concept” of harsher laws being imposed for the wrong reasons. But shouldn’t individuals who wish harsher sentences be content with the end result?

Welcome to the discussion! I moved your post down here to be a stand alone post since that is what you had intended.

I don’t necessarily regard the courts as soft on crime. It is very subjective it seems. Some states, like Vermont and California, seem to interpret laws far differently and seem to give much lighter offenses to certain crimes than others. For me personally, it isn’t about punishment being too light or too heavy, it is about equal protection and equal treatment under the law, as promised. The end result is harsher penalties for only some and not for others. I want equal punishment for violent crimes, harsher or lighter is an entirely different debate for me.

Thank you for the welcome. I found the link to your site from the Fox News forums, which I used to enjoy reading because of the alternate views put forward. Unfortunately, now there are too many liberal trolls and conservative goats on that bridge.

I would describe most of my views as being very liberal. However, people have described my views on the law very “odd”. Which is most likely from my lack of understanding of them.

I’m also a firm believer that security, and often justice, will only be found within the reach of your own arm. I’m not sure if people would consider this a liberal or conservative view, but I hope you would agree that all personal views should be subjected to contemplation and ideally brought forward to be tested against dissimilar minds.

Thanks for moving the post to not make me look like an idiot. Now allow me to mess that up too…

Doesn’t equal punishment for equal crime inheirently contradict the concept of trials on a “case by case” basis? Granted, this is another loaded question. American laws currently agree that violent action is not always incorrect. But are you saying once convicted, all persons should be subjected to the same sentencing? If so, how about regard for previous offenses? A person who has been sentenced for a crime and gone to prison or paid a fine has theoretically “paid his debt to society”.

No I don’t think this is a similar situation in regard to hate crimes. Every crime committed has sentencing guidelines that are generally applied using severity of the crime, severity of the result of the crime, and previous history of the criminal. All of those things should be considered. However, current laws, for the most part do not take into account the social position of the victim. And that is what hate crimes do. In that way they are inherently wrong. I would like to see mandatory sentencing based on results. We have varying degrees of similar crimes in order to take circumstances into account (accidentally killing someone while driving drunk is not the same as 1st degree murder for example). Once the crime is classified, treat everyone the same regardless of the reasons behind it.

I can agree with legislation against violent crimes, but wait, we already have laws against them. Just increase the penalty for blatant offenses of a physical nature. However, I cannot agree with any law that restricts freedom of speech, no matter how offensive it may be. As the old cliche goes “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” We have gotten too deep into the political correctness of thought and words. If someone is so soft they can be emotionally scared by verbal hatred, they need to get a thicker skin. Try being a Christian, you will be attacked, just get over it!